Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

but the rocks in the asteroid belt don't have any taurean ionized fields? but clearly they have a magnetic field to be attracted to the sun?

Have you never heard of a thing called gravity?Do you think the planetary bodies are attracted to the Sun by magnetism?

Not all the planets have magnetic fields, you know, yet all of them maintain their orbits around the Sun.Mainstream science attributes this to gravity.

Personally, I believe the orbits are maintained by two opposing forces, the electric field and the gravity field.Without two opposing forces, a slight variation in orbit should send an orbiting body either into the Sun, or into outer space. In my opinion.

jimmcginn wrote:Because air's capacity to hold moisture goes up dramatically with temperature and because the temperature of air is generally higher over land.

That's my guess.

I agree with you that elevated temperature levels are connected with this, but I disagree with your overall explanation.

Namely I have, while being on the beach, many times personally experienced scorching heat, and yet at the same time there was virtually zero humidity in this very hot air.

About two weeks ago, while reading your posts about water plasma, a possible explanation for the humidity problem came to my mind;

The water plasma that we perceive as being humidity during warm months, does not at all come of the evaporation from the seas and oceans, but ONLY of the evaporation from the rivers and lakes.

During winter months at many places of the world, the surface of the rivers and lakes freezes.I think that reverse process happens during summer.

High temperatures cause the surface of the rivers and lakes to transform into water plasma that has more in common with gaseous state of the matter than with the liquid state of the matter, which is why this rivers/lakes water plasma mixes with the air during the warm months.

But in order for this to happen, the water has to reach a certain temperature.We all know that rivers and lakes are warmer than the seas that are situated in relative vicinity of these very same rivers and lakes.I think that seas and oceans NEVER EVER reach this necessary evaporation temperature, and accordingly - contrary to what the meteorologists are saying - there is ZERO evaporation from the oceans.

That is not to say that there is no evaporation ABOVE the ocean surface, because I also think that seas and oceans electromagnetically DRAW IN the evaporation from the inland areas, because greater mass of water wants to incorporate into itself smaller masses of water.

How do I know this?Because a greater drop of water absorbs a smaller drop of water into its GREATER VOLUME and also lets not forget that WATER is a living entity with a collective intelligence.

There is no way that evaporation comes from seas, because the surface area of seas is many times greater than the surface area of the nearby rivers and lakes, and accordingly if evaporation came also from the seas during summer times, people at the coast would experience suffocating humidity levels.

They would experience suffocating humidity, because the surface area of the mass of water situated near the coast, is much greater than the masses of water further inland.

john666 wrote:. . . at the same time there was virtually zero humidity in this very hot air.

Well, here's something you might want to be careful about. The calculation of humidity that is as associated with meteorology and that associated with physics are very different. Meteorologists don't actually measure humidity in an absolute sense as a physicists would. Meteorologists measurements have to do with predicting rain, fog, snow, etc. And so, my point is that when a meteorologists states that there is zero humidity that does not mean there is zero H2O in the air. (In fact, there is no place on the surface where there is zero H2O in the air, IMO.)

john666 wrote:But in order for this to happen, the water has to reach a certain temperature.

Even ice produces evaporation. (Look up sublimation.)

john666 wrote:They would experience suffocating humidity, because the surface area of the mass of water situated near the coast, is much greater than the masses of water further inland.

I can't say that I agree with your analysis. Nevertheless, evaporation is a greatly misunderstood concept. Many people can't accept that the fact that evaporation involve groups of H2O molecules (microdroplets) and not gaseous H2O.

comingfrom wrote:Do you think the planetary bodies are attracted to the Sun by magnetism?

Not all the planets have magnetic fields, you know, yet all of them maintain their orbits around the Sun.Mainstream science attributes this to gravity.

Personally, I believe the orbits are maintained by two opposing forces, the electric field and the gravity field.Without two opposing forces, a slight variation in orbit should send an orbiting body either into the Sun, or into outer space. In my opinion.

Paul

Not wishing to take it off topic, but it would appear that your understandings of the earths magnetic fields is limited to it effecting only a compass needle.

Not all planets have magnetic fields. Really can you prove that? And what is gravity if not the attractive side of magnetism?

So tell me, this HUGE magnetic Field we live on, just what properties does it have in relation to the Sun's even HUGER magnetic Field? What evidence is there of the attractiveness and repulsion of earths magnetic field to other heavenly bodies?

And Finally, like iron filings around a magnet , how do these "Lines of Force" interact with the Earths Atmosphere? It appears Jim and his tornadoes fail to address this point as well.

Many people can't accept that the fact that evaporation involve groups of H2O molecules (microdroplets) and not gaseous H2O.

It's not that we can't accept it, Jim.

It's just that we grew up believing that moisture in the air is gaseous,which seems a perfectly reasonable belief.No one has yet given us reason to believe otherwise.

I am still looking forward to reading your proof that evaporated water remains in droplets, and why that is so important to your theory.

How come the water stays in groups of molecules?How big are these groups?Why don't we see always see a haze, since all air at the surface bears some moisture, and if the moisture is in droplets?And finally, how do these super fine droplets form wind reflective walls in the atmosphere?

comingfrom wrote:It appears Jim and his tornadoes fail to address this point as well.

I hear your concern but I simply don't see electricity being all that relevant as you EU people seem to want to believe.

It's kind of becoming cliche on this forum (EU). Somebody will respond to one of my posts and make insinuations that I am ignoring electricity (which is certainly not true) and/or that I have artificially excluded electricity from my model. But then when I ask for specifics, as I did in here (upthread), they suddenly don't want to play anymore.

I'm not ignoring electricity. It just doesn't seem that relevant to my model. If you believe otherwise please make an effort to explain your position in regard to something specific, explicit, and substantive.

john666 wrote:. . . at the same time there was virtually zero humidity in this very hot air.

Well, here's something you might want to be careful about. The calculation of humidity that is as associated with meteorology and that associated with physics are very different. Meteorologists don't actually measure humidity in an absolute sense as a physicists would. Meteorologists measurements have to do with predicting rain, fog, snow, etc. And so, my point is that when a meteorologists states that there is zero humidity that does not mean there is zero H2O in the air. (In fact, there is no place on the surface where there is zero H2O in the air, IMO.)

I was not talking about calculation of humidity, but about what my own lungs tell me.There is far less humidity at the coast as opposed to humidity further inland, and the more you move inland the more the humidity grows.

john666 wrote:But in order for this to happen, the water has to reach a certain temperature.

jimmcginn wrote:Even ice produces evaporation. (Look up sublimation.)

The evaporation that ice produces is very different from the summer evaporation, and i was speaking about summer months.

john666 wrote:They would experience suffocating humidity, because the surface area of the mass of water situated near the coast, is much greater than the masses of water further inland.

jimmcginn wrote:I can't say that I agree with your analysis. Nevertheless, evaporation is a greatly misunderstood concept. Many people can't accept that the fact that evaporation involve groups of H2O molecules (microdroplets) and not gaseous H2O.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

What is wrong with my analysis?

Near the coast there is a sea, which has generally speaking FAR MORE water surface area then the inland rivers and lakes.So if evaporation also comes from the sea, how come that during hot summer months there is not more humidity near the coast as opposed to further inland, considering that there is much more water surface area near the coast?

john666 wrote:I was not talking about calculation of humidity, but about what my own lungs tell me.

How much of what your lungs are telling you is actually due to temperature, pressure, wind speed, and other situational factors?

john666 wrote:They would experience suffocating humidity, because the surface area of the mass of water situated near the coast, is much greater than the masses of water further inland.

This is very speculative and anecdotal.

Also, keep this in mind. Unlike any other chemical, differences in pressure, temperature, and wind speed have a dramatic effect on the properties of water vapor. The underlying reasons for this involves poorly understood aspects of H2O that I discuss explicitly in "Lookout For Bill" which you can find here on this forum (thunderbolts).

comingfrom wrote:It appears Jim and his tornadoes fail to address this point as well.

I hear your concern but I simply don't see electricity being all that relevant as you EU people seem to want to believe.

It's kind of becoming cliche on this forum (EU). Somebody will respond to one of my posts and make insinuations that I am ignoring electricity (which is certainly not true) and/or that I have artificially excluded electricity from my model. But then when I ask for specifics, as I did in here (upthread), they suddenly don't want to play anymore.

I'm not ignoring electricity. It just doesn't seem that relevant to my model. If you believe otherwise please make an effort to explain your position in regard to something specific, explicit, and substantive.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

I said nothing of "electricity" Its Magnetic Fields I refer to.

I might remind you that Tesla came up with AC and Generators by studying the Earths Magnetic Fields and their lines of force otherwise known as Ley lines and built his Labs on the intersections of these Lines. Its no Coincidence that Leedskalins Coral Castle is next to Cape Canaveral as Gravity shows a "lesser Attractive" force to the earth in this region (magnetic line intersections) and so less fuel is required for lift off. Same goes for the placement of Nuclear power stations and intelligence listening posts but we are bordering on the conspiracy theories here.

So what part does Magnetic lines of force surrounding the Earth play in vortex formations within the atmosphere?Given in some previous posts I refer to making Water Magnetic by "electricity" and clearly there's "electricity" in thunderstorms, How does this magnetically charged water vapor in the atmosphere interact with the earths magnetic fields? By forming Tornadoes?

We have found consistently that when putting "electricity" into a bucket of water (like in the aforementioned experiments that you dismiss so easily) that the water begins to vortex. It SPINS in the bucket with just the addition of "electricity".From Our private emails Jim, You completely dismiss any video I have made, so if you want to understand how water (and water vapor) vortex with the induction of magnetic fields by application of 'electricity' your're going to have to get off your chair and do some Field research.Otherwise your tornado theory and what the atmosphere is, remains just fanciful theories purposely excluding some pretty new revolutionary experiments of water and gasses being inducted with Electro-magnetic fields.